India Must Make Peace With Pakistan to Stop Terrorism

[fatman17]

Faiz Lalani Co-author of HuffPost's At War blog

Posted: April 8, 2010

India Must Make Peace With Pakistan to Stop Terrorism

Since founding, Pakistan has supported insurgencies and terrorism, training and funding groups as a tool of warfare against a burgeoning giant next door, India. In 1947, barely two months into independence, Islamabad ordered lashkars -- or insurgent armies -- to raid Kashmir after the Maharaja decided that the Muslim-majority state would join India, cementing a pattern Pakistan's establishment would follow decades later. Pakistan to this day covertly aides Kashmiri insurgents (though recent reports suggest that the support is now at an ebb), and India refuses to negotiate over Kashmir until Pakistan rids the region of terrorism. It is the lack of a permanent peaceful solution between India and Pakistan that provided -- and provides -- the impetus for Pakistani terrorism.

Pakistan's reliance on insurgents, however, isn't part of some maniacal proclivity for Islamic fanaticism. Rather, it is a calculated national security decision rooted in its particular position. Neighboring Indian boasts a population nearly ten times that of Pakistan's, and its armed forces are more than double in size. Dwarfed by the Indian elephant, Pakistan's generals have chosen to use jihadists in the cause of the country's security. Islamabad's support for terrorism in India and in the region must be understood in this light.

Although Pakistan has an undeniable terrorism problem, for New Delhi to fixate on the tree -- terrorism -- rather than the forest -- the strategic environment that fosters terrorism -- is a misstep. Indian diplomats insist that Pakistan must end terrorism before talks can begin. But such an assertion assumes two things: firstly, that Pakistan can indeed "end" terrorism; and secondly, that Pakistan will merely end support for terrorism if New Delhi urges it to.

The phenomenon of terrorism is a complex one, and to believe that Pakistan's intelligence services exercise reasonable control over the region's various extremists is foolish. In 2009, nearly 3,000 Pakistani civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks, while various military and intelligence officers and bases were targeted -- and they still are. If Pakistani authorities knew how to end terrorism, they would do so. And recent crackdowns on militant groups in the country's northwest and the Punjab attest to a growing conviction in Pakistan's national security apparatus that terrorism must be defeated.

However, the question of whether Pakistan continues to support insurgents in Kashmir -- including Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for the Mumbai attacks -- remains open. So long as Pakistan perceives India as a threat, it will continue to covertly support anti-Indian elements. Irresponsible and unsubstantiated recriminations lobbed against Pakistan by New Delhi don't help either. They instead fuel Islamabad's bellicosity. But by addressing the root cause of Pakistan's use of jihadists -- its security dilemma -- the two can move forward.

Indians are understandably frustrated with Pakistan's past support of insurgencies and terrorist groups. And, as the trial of Mumbai attack plotter David Headley revealed, individuals within Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus provided vital support to the group that attacked Mumbai in November 2008???. New Delhi should continue to press Pakistan to prosecute and arrest the perpetrators. But to secure that cooperation India must realize: enemies don't work together, friends do.

Instead of holding the Indo-Pak peace process hostage to the singular issue of terrorism, India should embrace Pakistan's call for a composite dialogue that puts all the issues -- including Kashmir and terrorism -- on the table. By assuring Pakistan that India means well, and that it is willing to settle a dispute that has formed the core of Pakistani foreign policy since inception, New Delhi can build the foundations for a peaceful South Asia. An overture to Islamabad would calm the nerves of Pakistan's generals, which will in turn lead to a strategic reorientation in Islamabad -- that is, a renunciation of terrorism at both the official and unofficial levels.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

Sounds familiar.
Now when did I last hear that phrase or words close to it, and that was last year.

So now its in the media and some here may actually take note..
(sorry just being the usual pessimist).

 

[fatman17]

ANALYSIS: Terrorism in Pak-India relations —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

India has adopted a two-pronged strategy for coping with terrorism from Pakistan. There is a return to coercive diplomacy by moving its troops from peacetime locations to positions closer to the India-Pak border and tough statements from India’s top civilian and military leadership

Terrorism and jihad overshadow India-Pakistan relations. The meeting of their foreign secretaries in New Delhi on February 25, 2010, failed to agree on a shared agenda for resuming the talks suspended after the terrorist attack in Mumbai on November 26, 2008. The outcome of the talks could not have been different because the two sides had divergent official briefs to pursue. Pakistan wanted to revive the suspended talks on eight issue areas, including terrorism. The Indian side was there only to restate what its top leaders had already said: that Pakistan must satisfy India on terrorism before any other issue can be discussed.

Since the Mumbai attacks, India has reduced India-Pakistan relations to a single issue — terrorism — which is one dimensional, i.e. Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT). India wants Pakistan to decimate the LeT leadership and infrastructure or hand over its leaders to India as Pakistan handed over some alleged terrorists to the US. Other dimensions of terrorism and militancy that threaten Pakistan’s internal stability and security do not interest India.

India has adopted a two-pronged strategy for coping with terrorism from Pakistan. There is a return to coercive diplomacy by moving its troops from peacetime locations to positions closer to the India-Pak border. This is coupled with tough statements from India’s top civilian and military leadership, including the repeated threat of “any action” if there is another major terrorist attack in India. There have also been suggestions of surgical airstrikes on ‘terrorist camps’ in Pakistan or Pakistan-administered Kashmir, limited war, and the resort to the Cold Start strategy. India also launched a global diplomatic campaign to mobilise support for its position on “Pakistan as an epicentre of terrorism”.

Most Indian statements and diplomatic activities are meant to deflect domestic pressure not only from the opposition parties, especially the BJP, but also from some circles in the Congress Party that think a powerful state like India should play tough with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s policies towards Islamic militant groups and their terrorist activities have changed over the last year. Its military is genuinely engaged in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency activities in the tribal areas and the security authorities are taking limited action against the militant groups based in mainland Pakistan, especially in Punjab.

However, the LeT and other Punjab-based militant groups are at a lower rank in Pakistani priorities for fighting terrorism. The order of priority is: al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and their allies in the tribal area, the Afghan Taliban and Punjab-based groups, including the LeT. The immediate and direct threat to Pakistan comes from the first three types of groups. The US and others interested in stabilising the situation in Afghanistan also focus on al Qaeda and the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.

Pakistan does not have the capacity to take equally firm action — simultaneously — against all these groups when it has to keep a reasonable number of troops close to the Indian border in view of the ongoing troubled relations.

Instead of cooperating with each other to counter terrorism, India and Pakistan have returned to their traditional rivalry. They are now engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Their intelligence agencies are working to undermine each other’s interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also made repeated complaints of India’s financial support to the Baloch dissidents based in Afghanistan.

Another sign of increased trouble between Pakistan and India is the river water issue. Pakistan complains that India is manipulating the river water in Kashmir and working on new water storage and power-generation projects that violate the Indus Water Treaty. The Indian response is that water shortages are due to changing weather patterns and Pakistan’s poor water management. India’s Indus Water Commissioner visited Pakistan in February and March but the water issue could not be resolved. Pakistan is now planning to take the Kishanganga Dam issue to international arbitration. Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner is waiting for Indian permission to visit the present and planned dam sites in Indian-administered Kashmir.

India has approached the US and Saudi Arabia for diplomatic support of its terrorism-related demands from Pakistan. The US sympathises with India’s position and it has designated the LeT as a terrorist organisation. It has also taken up the issue of the LeT (now operating as Jamaat-ud-Dawa) with Pakistan. However, the US is not going to do anything beyond expressing concern on this issue because it views al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban as greater threats. The same can be said about Saudi Arabia. To them, the LeT is a lesser threat than al Qaeda and their allied groups, which include the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. The current security priorities of the US and Saudi Arabia are more in line with Pakistan than with India.

The coordination between Pakistan and the US appears to have increased as the Obama administration launched a new Afghanistan strategy earlier this year, one that focuses on tough military action in Afghanistan, reconciliation with and reintegration of selected Taliban, and Pakistan’s sustained military action in the tribal areas. These new strategies aim at creating conducive conditions for a gradual US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Greater attention on the future of Afghanistan will make the US and other Western states less receptive to India’s single item terrorism agenda against Pakistan. India will face increased diplomatic persuasion to improve relations with Pakistan so that the latter can devote full attention to the tribal areas and the Afghan border.

India and Pakistan need to adopt the following steps to neutralise militants from imposing their agenda on Indo-Pakistan relations:

1. India should agree to a comprehensive dialogue on all contentious issues and work towards resolving the less contentious ones. Improved relations create more space for Pakistan to take firmer action against the groups known for their activities in Kashmir and India.

2. There is no military option available to India and Pakistan for solving their bilateral problems. India’s prime minister should not pay attention to those talking about a limited war, surgical airstrikes or Cold Start.

3. Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment need to give up altogether the use of jihadis for pursuing their agenda in Kashmir. The blowback of the jihad strategy has undermined Pakistan’s internal harmony and stability. Pakistan can no longer afford such a self-destructive strategy.

4. As immediate confidence-building measures, the two sides should address the water issue, encourage more trade and movement of people across the LoC in Kashmir and liberalise the visa and travel regime.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

 

[Kabir Panthi]

^^^ Well, there was a deal that was close to being clinched when Musharraf was around, but now it seems Pakistan has increased its price to the point where it is not affordable.

 

[ajpirzada]

no its not pakistan which has changed the price. its india which tried to take advantage of chaos in pakistan but slipped. you made composite dialogue hostage to terrorist attack. remember we could have done the same when samjhota train was attacked.

composite dialogue should be kept separate from such incidents or it will become a child's play for terrorists on both sides to derail peace talks.

 

[Bombay]

you made composite dialogue hostage to terrorist attack.

How ashamed and degraded you think we Indians are?

11 people come from your country, kill people with closed eyes, and then you say we are not even justified in having some anger? You are talking of a terrorist attack as if 11 terrorists threw some stones from across the border. They KILLED people. OUR people. Your Govt. ADMITTED that all were Pakistani citizens.

Now you will do an equal equal by saying that India is involved in Balochistan. Kindly ask your Govt. to give us the "un-deniable proof" which it claims of having. Please. We are waiting.

Till then India is not the one responsible.

If my country is responsible for any kind of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, then I loathe my Govt. But I am sure, that my Govt., is like my people only. It won't do that. If it did, then show us the proof. I'l be the first one to believe it. What is Pakistan waiting for?

 

[sensenreason]

ANALYSIS: Terrorism in Pak-India relations —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

India has adopted a two-pronged strategy for coping with terrorism from Pakistan. There is a return to coercive diplomacy by moving its troops from peacetime locations to positions closer to the India-Pak border and tough statements from India’s top civilian and military leadership

Terrorism and jihad overshadow India-Pakistan relations. The meeting of their foreign secretaries in New Delhi on February 25, 2010, failed to agree on a shared agenda for resuming the talks suspended after the terrorist attack in Mumbai on November 26, 2008. The outcome of the talks could not have been different because the two sides had divergent official briefs to pursue. Pakistan wanted to revive the suspended talks on eight issue areas, including terrorism. The Indian side was there only to restate what its top leaders had already said: that Pakistan must satisfy India on terrorism before any other issue can be discussed.

Since the Mumbai attacks, India has reduced India-Pakistan relations to a single issue — terrorism — which is one dimensional, i.e. Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT). India wants Pakistan to decimate the LeT leadership and infrastructure or hand over its leaders to India as Pakistan handed over some alleged terrorists to the US. Other dimensions of terrorism and militancy that threaten Pakistan’s internal stability and security do not interest India.

India has adopted a two-pronged strategy for coping with terrorism from Pakistan. There is a return to coercive diplomacy by moving its troops from peacetime locations to positions closer to the India-Pak border. This is coupled with tough statements from India’s top civilian and military leadership, including the repeated threat of “any action” if there is another major terrorist attack in India. There have also been suggestions of surgical airstrikes on ‘terrorist camps’ in Pakistan or Pakistan-administered Kashmir, limited war, and the resort to the Cold Start strategy. India also launched a global diplomatic campaign to mobilise support for its position on “Pakistan as an epicentre of terrorism”.

Most Indian statements and diplomatic activities are meant to deflect domestic pressure not only from the opposition parties, especially the BJP, but also from some circles in the Congress Party that think a powerful state like India should play tough with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s policies towards Islamic militant groups and their terrorist activities have changed over the last year. Its military is genuinely engaged in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency activities in the tribal areas and the security authorities are taking limited action against the militant groups based in mainland Pakistan, especially in Punjab.

However, the LeT and other Punjab-based militant groups are at a lower rank in Pakistani priorities for fighting terrorism. The order of priority is: al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban and their allies in the tribal area, the Afghan Taliban and Punjab-based groups, including the LeT. The immediate and direct threat to Pakistan comes from the first three types of groups. The US and others interested in stabilising the situation in Afghanistan also focus on al Qaeda and the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban.

Pakistan does not have the capacity to take equally firm action — simultaneously — against all these groups when it has to keep a reasonable number of troops close to the Indian border in view of the ongoing troubled relations.

Instead of cooperating with each other to counter terrorism, India and Pakistan have returned to their traditional rivalry. They are now engaged in a proxy war in Afghanistan. Their intelligence agencies are working to undermine each other’s interests in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also made repeated complaints of India’s financial support to the Baloch dissidents based in Afghanistan.

Another sign of increased trouble between Pakistan and India is the river water issue. Pakistan complains that India is manipulating the river water in Kashmir and working on new water storage and power-generation projects that violate the Indus Water Treaty. The Indian response is that water shortages are due to changing weather patterns and Pakistan’s poor water management. India’s Indus Water Commissioner visited Pakistan in February and March but the water issue could not be resolved. Pakistan is now planning to take the Kishanganga Dam issue to international arbitration. Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner is waiting for Indian permission to visit the present and planned dam sites in Indian-administered Kashmir.

India has approached the US and Saudi Arabia for diplomatic support of its terrorism-related demands from Pakistan. The US sympathises with India’s position and it has designated the LeT as a terrorist organisation. It has also taken up the issue of the LeT (now operating as Jamaat-ud-Dawa) with Pakistan. However, the US is not going to do anything beyond expressing concern on this issue because it views al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban as greater threats. The same can be said about Saudi Arabia. To them, the LeT is a lesser threat than al Qaeda and their allied groups, which include the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. The current security priorities of the US and Saudi Arabia are more in line with Pakistan than with India.

The coordination between Pakistan and the US appears to have increased as the Obama administration launched a new Afghanistan strategy earlier this year, one that focuses on tough military action in Afghanistan, reconciliation with and reintegration of selected Taliban, and Pakistan’s sustained military action in the tribal areas. These new strategies aim at creating conducive conditions for a gradual US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Greater attention on the future of Afghanistan will make the US and other Western states less receptive to India’s single item terrorism agenda against Pakistan. India will face increased diplomatic persuasion to improve relations with Pakistan so that the latter can devote full attention to the tribal areas and the Afghan border.

India and Pakistan need to adopt the following steps to neutralise militants from imposing their agenda on Indo-Pakistan relations:

1. India should agree to a comprehensive dialogue on all contentious issues and work towards resolving the less contentious ones. Improved relations create more space for Pakistan to take firmer action against the groups known for their activities in Kashmir and India.

2. There is no military option available to India and Pakistan for solving their bilateral problems. India’s prime minister should not pay attention to those talking about a limited war, surgical airstrikes or Cold Start.

3. Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment need to give up altogether the use of jihadis for pursuing their agenda in Kashmir. The blowback of the jihad strategy has undermined Pakistan’s internal harmony and stability. Pakistan can no longer afford such a self-destructive strategy.

4. As immediate confidence-building measures, the two sides should address the water issue, encourage more trade and movement of people across the LoC in Kashmir and liberalise the visa and travel regime.

Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Nice article...I dont agree with the contention in #1 as highlighted.
When 26/11 happened, Ind-Pak relations were probably at their best ever...Zardari was supposed to travel to India and make an agreement on Kashmir/Nukes...

It doesnt seem possible that in my lifetime we will get our relations any closer than the pre-26/11 period starting from 2006 or so......India making concessions will not lead to anything, except demand for more concessions.

 

[Mauryan]

No objection,If occupied kashmir was handed over properly back to India.Peace will prevail in the South-Asia.
Its just that, you cant ask your mother her,body parts because she gave you birth.

 

[ajpirzada]

How ashamed and degraded you think we Indians are?

11 people come from your country, kill people with closed eyes, and then you say we are not even justified in having some anger? You are talking of a terrorist attack as if 11 terrorists threw some stones from across the border. They KILLED people. OUR people. Your Govt. ADMITTED that all were Pakistani citizens.

Now you will do an equal equal by saying that India is involved in Balochistan. Kindly ask your Govt. to give us the "un-deniable proof" which it claims of having. Please. We are waiting.

Till then India is not the one responsible.

If my country is responsible for any kind of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, then I loathe my Govt. But I am sure, that my Govt., is like my people only. It won't do that. If it did, then show us the proof. I'l be the first one to believe it. What is Pakistan waiting for?

dont try to give me this emotional talk. it has to do nothing with how full of shame you ppl are.
like i said we could have put an end to composite dialogue as well after the terrorist attack on samjhota express. but we didnt. btw wat happened to its investigation which harmat karkaray was following? few army men were involved from wat i remember. but the whole thing just disappeared after the mysterious death of mr karkaray

 

[Prometheus]

dont try to give me this emotional talk. it has to do nothing with how full of shame you ppl are.
like i said we could have put an end to composite dialogue as well after the terrorist attack on samjhota express. but we didnt. btw wat happened to its investigation which harmat karkaray was following? few army men were involved from wat i remember. but the whole thing just disappeared after the mysterious death of mr karkaray

Maharastra ATS powers are limited to Maharastra.........they cannot overtake investigations of incident happened in punjab/haryana.

Mod, how did you came to conclusion that Mr. Hemant karkaray was investigating Samjotha bombing case???

To my knowlegde CBI is doing it!!!

I have read many comments by my fallow neighbours..............that Mr.Karakaray was investigating that case..............I think their is some misunderstanding in Pakistan.

About article by Think tank .........very good articles..............that clearly showed that Pakistan has to give use of "non-state actors" to make peace with India.

But article also told that Pakistan is overshadowed by "indian Elephant" so restoring to helping insurgents.

first article also said one thing that barely after 2 months of indepandance pakistan started using them.

I agreed with the point raised that for India , usee of military is no option..........as we got a lot more to lose than to gain.

I think Mr.MMS is a wise man and dont listen to people calling for surgical strikes.

India is just moving army to the border and then moving them back..........funny way to push Pakistan to work

 

[ajpirzada]

well ill tell you wat was happening in ur country.

Karkare was investigating some other case may be Malegaon blasts. and while investigating, your public prosecutor quoted the witness as saying that Capt. prohit provided RDX for attacks on samjhota express. now while the investigation was under way, karkarey got killed and the whole investigation was dumped under the dirty old carpet.

 

[Storm Force]

I can never see Peace happening in the Indo Pak scenario.

Regardless of wat People this is not about Water or Kashmir its much deeper than that.

Pakistan and india are like 2 children born to the same mother with HUGE SIBLING RIVALRY.

But one son is much bigger with more resources. It seen as a threat to the junior smaller sibling.

Unless the junior sibling grows to the same height weight wealth as the senior the tension will always exist.

Ie inferority complex some call it.

 

[nwmalik]

I can never see Peace happening in the Indo Pak scenario.

Regardless of wat People this is not about Water or Kashmir its much deeper than that.

Pakistan and india are like 2 children born to the same mother with HUGE SIBLING RIVALRY.

But one son is much bigger with more resources. It seen as a threat to the junior smaller sibling.

Unless the junior sibling grows to the same height weight wealth as the senior the tension will always exist.

Ie inferority complex some call it.

india needs to come to equal level
i mean talk as equal.
Unfortunately their brahman mentality is the problem.
The have more and they have taken more and continue to do so.
They have to show a bigger heart.
It is natural for pakistan to be suspicious of a bigger and stronger neighbour who has not kept promises, has caused bangladesh, did siachen etc.

For the sake of all of us be more gracious

 

[Bang Galore]

well ill tell you wat was happening in ur country.

Karkare was investigating some other case may be Malegaon blasts. and while investigating, your public prosecutor quoted the witness as saying that Capt. prohit provided RDX for attacks on samjhota express. now while the investigation was under way, karkarey got killed and the whole investigation was dumped under the dirty old carpet.

That's not entirely correct. Even though Col.Purohit was investigated as a suspect in these blasts, he was never charged with any involvement. The CBI which investigated the blasts found no evidence of his involvement. You would be very interested in knowing that a Pakistani national Asif Kasmani was named by the U.S. as being involved in the blasts and sanctions were sought from the U.N. on that basis.

US names Pak man for blasts on Samjhauta

NEW DELHI: In what should scotch all doubts about who was responsible for the Samjhauta Express blasts of February 2007 that killed about 70 people, US has approached the UN to get a certain Asif Kasmani declared an international terrorist.

The reasons cited by US to get Kasmani, a Pakistani national, declared an international terrorist are his involvement in the Samjhauta Express blasts.

Kasmani is considered to be the link between Laskar-e-Toiba and Al Qaida. Though India had blamed the Samjhauta Express blasts on elements from Pakistan, the latter has strenuously denied any connection to the incident.

Much later, a goof-up by the prosecution in the Malegaon blast case raised some doubts about the involvement of Abhinav Bharat plotter Lt Col Srikant Purohit, bringing an Hindutva terror element into play. This had given Pakistan a handle, claiming that terror events are routinely blamed on it while the "Hindu" angle was ignored.
US names Pak man for blasts on Samjhauta - The Times of India

you may also want to read this:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate.../21759-us-names-pak-man-blasts-samjhauta.html

 

[ajpirzada]

I can never see Peace happening in the Indo Pak scenario.

Regardless of wat People this is not about Water or Kashmir its much deeper than that.

Pakistan and india are like 2 children born to the same mother with HUGE SIBLING RIVALRY.

But one son is much bigger with more resources. It seen as a threat to the junior smaller sibling.

Unless the junior sibling grows to the same height weight wealth as the senior the tension will always exist.

Ie inferority complex some call it.

ya or superiority complex as someone hiding behind UNs flag might wanna consider it.